Networking infrastructures comprise computing devices capable of receiving packets of data and forwarding the packets to desired destinations. Typically networks include multiple interconnected networking nodes, each node having ingress and egress ports through which traffic flows according to one or more forwarding rules. Each node exists in a physical environment that affects the cost to keep the node active, not the least of which is power consumption. Power consumption can increase when networking nodes must route a heavy traffic load.
Others have put forth some effort toward managing power consumption in networks. For example, U.S. patent application publication 2010/0229016 to Kodama et al. titled “Assessing Conditions of Power Consumption in Computer Network”, filed Dec. 11, 2009, describes collecting power consumption information from connecting device. The information is used to present a manager with itemized power consumption on a unit-by-unit basis.
Another example in a similar vein as Kodama includes U.S. Pat. No. 7,783,910 to Felter et al. titled “Method and System for Associating Power Consumption of a Server with a Network Address Assigned to the Server”, filed Mar. 30, 2007. Felter takes a step further in analysis of power consumption by inspecting network traffic to determine a network address, which can then be associated with a power outlet.
Yet another example includes U.S. Pat. No. 7,634,617 to Frietsch et al. titled “Determining Power Consumption in Networks”, filed Jul. 26, 2006. Frietsch also contemplates determining a total electric power consumption of a network of networked devices. Kodama, Felter, and Frietsch provide useful information, but fail to address managing consumption or costs, especially in an environment where costs can vary from one networking node to another.
U.S. patent application 2011/0055611 to Sharma et al. titled “System for Controlling Power Consumption of a Network”, filed Jun. 17, 2010, makes further progress by selecting a network configuration of networking nodes that has the lowest power consumption. Interestingly, Sharma contemplates that determining a network configuration having the lowest overall power consumption can include a particular network path for transmitting network flow. However, Sharma also fails to appreciate monetary costs can vary from one networking node to another where the cost variance can give rise to cost optimization. Further, the references above fail to appreciate that differences in networking node environments can be leveraged to generate dynamically adjustable routing policies to improve network operation.
Unless the context dictates the contrary, all ranges set forth herein should be interpreted as being inclusive of their endpoints and open-ended ranges should be interpreted to include only commercially practical values. Similarly, all lists of values should be considered as inclusive of intermediate values unless the context indicates the contrary.
Thus, there is still a need for networking nodes that dynamically adjust packet routing policies.